Connors v. Town of Burlington
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Citation | 91 N.E.2d 212,325 Mass. 494 |
| Parties | CONNORS et al. v. TOWN OF BURLINGTON. |
| Decision Date | 09 March 1950 |
CONNORS et al.
v.
TOWN OF BURLINGTON.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.
March 9, 1950
Argued Feb. 9, 1950.
G. A. McLaughlin, Boston, C. S. McLaughlin, Boston, for plaintiffs.
K. L. Johnson, Woburn, for defendant.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, RONAN, and SPALDING, JJ.
LUMMUS, Justice.
This is a petition to the Land Court under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 240, § 14A, inserted by St.1934, c. 263, § 2, to determine the validity of a zoning by-law of Burlington. [91 N.E.2d 213] See G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 185, § 1(j 1/2), inserted by St.1934, c. 263, § 1, Pitman v. City of Medford, 312 Mass. 618, 45 N.E.2d 973; Fish v. Town of Canton, 322 Mass. 219, 77 N.E.2d 231; Barney & Casey Co. v. Town of Milton, 324 Mass. 440, 87 N.E.2d 9. The judge ruled that the zoning by-law is valid in its application to the land and buildings of the petitioners, who are brothers engaged in the operation of a piggery. The case comes here on the exceptions of the petitioners.
The following facts were found. The petitioners own a large tract of land in Burlington, of which about thirty acres are devoted to the commercial keeping and raising of about fifteen hundred pigs. About one thousand feet away is the house of one Baxter, and two other houses are within half a mile, with numerous other houses in the neighborhood. Except for the piggery, the land of the [325 Mass. 495] petitioners is little used. The piggery causes nauseating odors, and offensive flies and rats at the Baxter house. The town is small but growing, and is devoted to residence and farming. The land of the petitioners is not unsuitable for farming or for houses, although it may be used more profitably as a piggery. Its use as a piggery produces foul odors which are carried to great distances, and rats and flies as a 'natural result.'
The piggery has been operated since 1935. In 1943 the town adopted a zoning by-law. Under the by-law the use of land in a Residence A district was limited to dwellings and a few other innocuous uses. The land in question was zoned in a Residence B district, in which trade and commercial purposes were forbidden, and farming was permitted except when injurious, noxious or offensive to the neighborhood. It was provided that 'Farming does not include the keeping or raising of more than three * * * swine.' Obviously the keeping of a piggery such as was operated by the petitioners was forbidden.
Before the adoption of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
San Diego County v. McClurken
...Md. 652, 47 A.2d 613, 615-616; Beyer v. Mayor and City of Baltimore, 182 Md. 444, 34 A.2d 765, 769; Connors v. Town of Burlington, 1950, 325 Mass. 494, 91 N.E.2d 212, 213; Inspector of Buildings of Burlington v. Murphy, 320 Mass. 207, 68 N.E.2d 918, 919; Town of Burlington v. Dunn, 318 Mass......
-
Inhabitants of Town of Windham v. Sprague
...or structure when the same would amount to reconstruction, extension or structural change,' * * *' See Connors v. Town of Burlington, 325 Mass. 494, 495, 91 N.E.2d 212. In Selligman v. Von Allmen Bros., 297 Ky. 121, 179 S.W.2d 207, 209, the court upheld the Board of Adjustment and Appeals i......
-
Chilson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Attleboro
...greater extent.' Inspector of Buildings of Burlington v. Murphy, 320 Mass. 207, 210, 68 N.E.2d 918. Connors v. Town of Burlington, 325 Mass. 494, 91 N.E.2d 212. See Planning Board of Reading v. Board of Appeals of Reading, 333 Mass. 657, 659-661, 132 N.E.2d 386. Compare Town of Manchester v......
-
Cullen v. Building Inspector of North Attleborough
..." A nonconforming building is one erected prior to the enactment[353 Mass. 678] of the zoning by-law. See Connors v. Town of Burlington, 325 Mass. 494, 495--496, 91 N.E.2d 212; Childson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Attleboro, 344 Mass. 406, 411--412, 182 N.E.2d 535; Simeone Stone Corp. v. Boa......